[Football] Sam Morsy

[Gabbafella]

I bet gay relationships have been around longer than the comic book that tells him it's wrong.

 

[Chicken Run]

He seems to have cherry picked what his religious beliefs forbid him to do. Supporting the sin of gambling okay, homosexuality not. Twat.

I wonder how many times this tool heads down the Mosque

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Isn't Friday the Islamic sabbath comparison ? I'm not up with these things.

The irony is that the 'sabbath' as I understand it, is actually Saturday and not Sunday. Not sure why it changed. Some kind expediency doubtless.

I wasn't sure, hence why I used the term, not mentioning a day. My question still stands, given that football is played EVERY day of the week.

(In my VERY limited research of 'the Sabbath', it's the seventh day, which obvs varies, according to your religion/God.)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sounds a lot like attention seeking / virtue signalling to me.

If he’s not for inclusion for all in sport, then he must be against it. How is that compatible with being captain of your team when a colleague could be gay?

 

[Han Solo]

Happy to wear shirts with gambling logos on though.

That said, people should have freedom of choice - don't want to end up like the Poppy Police.

Great to see a sensible answer as the first one.

Obviously the rainbow flag is 100% more harmless than gambling/alcohol and all kinds of stuff players promote.
But asking players (or people in general) to wear politically charged symbols isn't fair to them. I certainly think they should be allowed to wear rainbow coloured armbands but asking them to do it is intrusive.

Not agreeing to wear it doesn't even mean he is against LGBT - it could be some relative who'd get really upset or bunch of people in his daily life. Can't just expect him to ruin his personal and/or religous relationships through a captains armband.

Improving conditions for LGBT in the western world primarly happened through information/culture/arts/politics. It has done a great job. The whole "I'm taking this rainbow flag and shoving it down your throat and either you like it or we'll send a million man pitchfork mob on your arse" method isn't as good.

All that really comes from it is that a few hundred thousand knobs who spend most days harassing trans people on X now steals the rainbow flag to smash muslims with it. More polarisation and misunderstandings between people. Great.

I hope I've stayed within the sphear of practical non-upsetting football philosophy rather than politics.
But just in case, I just want to point out that Neal Maupay is f***ing great. We all love him for the same reason we love to watch a deluded labrador chase a ball in the park: the unconditional love for the ball. Our unified love for Maupay is proof that football is at its best when its at its dumbest. It'd be nice if it can be kept that way as much as possible.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Great to see a sensible answer as the first one.

Obviously the rainbow flag is 100% more harmless than gambling/alcohol and all kinds of stuff players promote.
But asking players (or people in general) to wear politically charged symbols isn't fair to them. I certainly think they should be allowed to wear rainbow coloured armbands but asking them to do it is intrusive.

Not agreeing to wear it doesn't even mean he is against LGBT - it could be some relative who'd get really upset or bunch of people in his daily life. Can't just expect him to ruin his personal and/or religous relationships through a captains armband.

Improving conditions for LGBT in the western world primarly happened through information/culture/arts/politics. It has done a great job. The whole "I'm taking this rainbow flag and shoving it down your throat and either you like it or we'll send a million man pitchfork mob on your arse" method isn't as good.

All that really comes from it is that a few hundred thousand knobs who spend most days harassing trans people on X now steals the rainbow flag to smash muslims with it. More polarisation and misunderstandings between people. Great.

I hope I've stayed within the sphear of practical non-upsetting football philosophy rather than politics.
But just in case, I just want to point out that Neal Maupay is f***ing great. We all love him for the same reason we love to watch a deluded labrador chase a ball in the park: the unconditional love for the ball. Our unified love for Maupay is proof that football is at its best when its at its dumbest. It'd be nice if it can be kept that way as much as possible.

It's all very well saying don't wear an armband, but what about those people who are discriminated against in the game, the gay footballers who don't feel they can be honest with who they are, or just don't get picked if it is known. Are we actually saying it's more of a burden asking a captain to wear a coloured armband than someone facing real discrimination for who they are?

He represents a football club that will have youth football down to 6 year olds, women's teams, academy plus outreach programmes etc. Is it really too much to ask a representative of the football club to wear a symbol of inclusion?

He can retain his views on homosexuality being a sin and all the rest of it, BUT that doesn't mean he can't support homosexuals being included in sport. Mohamad Salah has no issue with wearing rainbow laces BECAUSE it is a symbol of inclusion, not whether he believes it is a sin or not. There is no hypocrisy unless the person choses to make it so.

 

[Cordwainer]

Isn’t it time that religious texts such as the Bible, Koran etc were given a bit of an update to reflect actual real life now? Could make them a bit more inclusive. Can’t see there being any issues doing this.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I wonder how many times this tool heads down the Mosque

Probably more than he gets down the wing

 

[BadFish]

To read the bible and conclude that Jesus would have been homophobic is utterly ridiculous.

But then plenty of conclusions drawn from the bible are utterly ridiculous.

Using poorly drawn conclusions as a basis for your opinions about stuff is utterly ridiculous.

Its his decision of course, but it is utterly ridiculous.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Happy to wear shirts with gambling logos on though.

That said, people should have freedom of choice - don't want to end up like the Poppy Police.

Personally I think much higher of him, than all the hypocrites who went along with this for a quiet life. It is good to have a show of solidarity, but that is all it is.

It is perfectly possible to think that homosexuality is wrong (just for clarity this is not my view), without wishing harm on others or judging individuals you meet.

 

[rippleman]

Isn’t it time that religious texts such as the Bible, Koran etc were given a bit of an update to reflect actual real life now? Could make them a bit more inclusive. Can’t see there being any issues doing this.

Or we could Build a Bonfire and burn the f***ing lot.

 

[jcdenton08]

I’m just pleased we live in a (largely) tolerant country where his right of choice is honoured.

 

[Commander]

Isn’t it time that religious texts such as the Bible, Koran etc were given a bit of an update to reflect actual real life now? Could make them a bit more inclusive. Can’t see there being any issues doing this.

Kind of suggest they were wrong in the first place though, doesn't it? Which I imagine is a bit awkward if you're Christian or Muslim.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I guess Morsy choosing not to do it implies that the other captains are indeed choosing to do it, rather than doing it because they've been told to.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I’m just pleased we live in a (largely) tolerant country where his right of choice is honoured.

But we are intolerant of intolerance.

 

[jcdenton08]

But we are intolerant of intolerance.

What I mean is there are several countries where wearing a rainbow arm band will get you thrown in prison, no freedom of expression or choice there, and no, not in a Stewart Lee sense.

 

[Gabbiano]

It's all very well saying don't wear an armband, but what about those people who are discriminated against in the game, the gay footballers who don't feel they can be honest with who they are, or just don't get picked if it is known. Are we actually saying it's more of a burden asking a captain to wear a coloured armband than someone facing real discrimination for who they are?

He represents a football club that will have youth football down to 6 year olds, women's teams, academy plus outreach programmes etc. Is it really too much to ask a representative of the football club to wear a symbol of inclusion?

He can retain his views on homosexuality being a sin and all the rest of it, BUT that doesn't mean he can't support homosexuals being included in sport. Mohamad Salah has no issue with wearing rainbow laces BECAUSE it is a symbol of inclusion, not whether he believes it is a sin or not. There is no hypocrisy unless the person choses to make it so.

It comes down to the club ultimately.

The club wants to show its support for this cause then it needs to pick an ambassador, at least for this one match, who won't contradict the club's message.

Morsy is within his rights not to wear it, true. Him not actively supporting a cause is not the same as him campaigning against it, also true. People are within their rights to question his motives and hipocrisy, also also true. What has happened now is there is yet another figure in football for homophobes to rally behind.

But what the club has done is prioritise one employee's right to pick and choose whatever aspects of religion they feel like following that day, over sending a message of active support to hundreds of LGBT+ Ipswich fans, employees and probably one or two players too (almost certainly if they have a women's team).

Pick another captain. Shame on Ipswich.

Edit: and let me say as an LGBT fan myself, these messages do matter and it always fills me with pride to see the Albion being active and vocal in this regard every year.

I just wish they'd lock the comment sections on social media so everything didn't get flooded by a world of homophobic ****s who've never been to Brighton.

@Bold Seagull apologies, I started replying in agreement and it ended up in a tirade!

 

[Cordwainer]

Kind of suggest they were wrong in the first place though, doesn't it? Which I imagine is a bit awkward if you're Christian or Muslim.

Possibly and also more of their time and somewhat outdated now.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Kind of suggest they were wrong in the first place though, doesn't it? Which I imagine is a bit awkward if you're Christian or Muslim.

Most church of england christian types are constantly reinterpreting the bible to fit the latest scientific theory. I say if you are going to be christian then have the gumption to stop moving the goalposts and stick with the literal text, God made the earth and all the creatures, only then did he bother making the sun, world is 6,000 years old, the dead can be resurrected, fish can be multiplied, water can be walked upon, virgins can give birth, da da dum

 

[Eeyore]

To add a humourous point, it would be interesting to see how torn GB News would be when covering this one.